-
Exception - graves, tombs, monuments
Re Hooper
-
Exception - care of specific animals
Pettingall v Pettingall
-
Exception - saying of masses in private
Bourne v Keane
-
No further exceptions allowed (some useful memorial to himself)
Re Endacott
-
The beneficiary principle (case)
Morice v Bishop of Durham
-
Who said that it should be called the 'enforcer principle', because all that mattered was that someone could enforce the trust
Hayton
-
Exception - fox hunting
Re Thompson
-
What are the exceptions to the beneficiary principle called?
Trusts of imperfect obligation
-
Trust to plant trees on an estate was construed as a trust for the benefit of the estate owners (no obligation to plant trees)
Re Bowes
-
Land on trust for an employees' sports club, came within the beneficiary principle because there were identifiable beneficiaries who could enforce the trust (per Lord Goff)
Re Denley's
-
What are the five different ways in which property of an unincorporated association can be held?
- Gift to existing members as joint tenants or tenants in common
- Trust for present and future members
- Gift to members, subject to terms of contract
- Mandate
- Power
-
What is the problem with construing a gift to an unincorporated association as a gift to the members?
Any member can sever his share and take it absolutely
-
What is the problem with holding property on trust for present and future members?
- Must comply with the rule against remoteness of vesting (125y)
- Will probably be difficult to ascertain the beneficiaries
-
Case - to hold property as a gift subject to contract, members must be able to change contract and bring association to an end
Re Grant
-
Land on trust 'for the purpose of' securing a ground for the club. Despite this, it was construed as a gift to the members, subject to the terms of the contract
Re Horley Town FC
-
Which case did Luxton say shows how the contract holding theory is now strongly favoured?
Re Horley Town FC
-
Re Lipinski
Oliver J - gift of land was good on three alternative bases: contract holding theory, trust for present members, or trust for present and future members (although beneficiaries were infants)
-
Neville Estates v Madden
- Cross J said a gift could be given to an unincorporated association in three ways:
- Gift as joint tenants
- Gift subject to contract
- Gift for purposes (will fail unless charitable)
-
An unincorporated association will not be dissolved just through inactivity. It can be dissolved in accordance with its rules, by agreement of the members, by court order, or when the substratum on which the association was founded is gone
Re GKN Bolts and Nuts
-
Society was dissolved with the death of the penultimate member. Last remaining member took all its assets
Hanchett-Stamford v AG
-
Case - widow fund. Surplus went bona vacantia, members gave up their rights to the money subject to the contract, all widows were dead
Cunnack v Edwards
-
Case - surplus went back to anonymous donors on resulting trust.
Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund
-
Case - widow fund. Goff LJ gave three different destinations for the surplus:
- Re West Sussex Constabulary
- 1) Members subscriptions - bona vacantia, they had got all they contracted for
- 2) Raffles, collecting boxes - bona vacantia, anonymous donors had intended to give up money for good
- 3) Donations and legacies - resulting trust back to donors
-
Case - widow fund. Members' subscriptions were held on contract holding theory, so the surplus went to the members
Re Bucks Constabulary
-
Case - property left to order of nuns. No valid trust because there were no identifiable beneficiaries (the order was huge) and the purposes were not charitable
Leahy v AG for New South Wales
|
|
